carrying on, like Silvia, as a curious observer. I hope it's helpful.
On Aug 16, 2010, at 20:01 , Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, David Singer wrote:
>> On Aug 15, 2010, at 3:02 , Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>
>>> I tried Googling "RFC-nottingham-http-link-header-10". This led me to:
>>
>> were you not able to follow the link on the IANA page?
>>
>> search for "link relations" on http://www.iana.org/protocols/
>>
>> Or is googling preferred for those that work at google :-)?
>
> I doubt most people who are interested in registering a link relation
> would think of looking on http://www.iana.org/protocols/.
Au contraire, I would expect most people wanting to register something to check the existing registry first :-)!
On Aug 16, 2010, at 20:16 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> - The HTML5 spec (as currently drafted) requires some additional metadata about each current and future link relation. However, the designated experts for the IANA link relation type registry do not think it is a good idea to maintain this particular metadata in the general link registry, and suggested a parallel HTML-specific registry.
>
> - At least some of the designated experts for the IANA link relation type registry seemed to indicate that all future entries in the registry should be appropriate for all contexts where they might be used (including the HTTP Link header, and Atom link relations), and so future (or current de facto standard) link relations that are HTML-specific by nature may well be rejected. Such relations might need to go in a separate HTML-specific registry.
>
> I found these pieces of information notable, because:
>
> (a) The suggestion of an additional/parallel HTML-specific link relation registry is not in line with the current ISSUE-27 Change Proposal, which calls for using the IANA registry exclusively (so perhaps now is a good time to call for alternate proposals).
>
> (b) Given the above pieces of information, it seems that the current ISSUE-27 Change Proposal, if not revised, could have significant normative impact beyond just the registration mechanism for link types.
>
Thanks Maciej. I guess that, if they are true, these all need discussion and resolution. Parallel registries would be bad, at first glance, and insisting on generality could be self-defeating.
On Aug 16, 2010, at 21:52 , Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>
> By the way - Bug 7475 is exactly about this: Ian wants to change some
> relations. He even admits that the changes he suggests are dramatic:
> [1] "the definitions in HTML5 rock the boat". Whereas I and some others
> wants to maintain the relations as defined in HTML4, XHTML1 etc stable.
> Neither authors or implementations should experience that link
> relations changes meaning under their feet.
I am concerned that re-defining something already defined is a bad practice, *even if* it is to match what people are doing in practice. In that case, I would leave the formal definition, and annotate it "This is used to identify cats. Note that in practice it is more often used to identify dogs, but for this usage, the dog attribute is preferred."
David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.